Israel’s Supreme Court again Chose Increasing Its Power over Compromise

On the first day of this year, the Israeli Supreme Court issued a ruling overturning an amendment to the Basic Law that passed the Knesset in July, which states that the court cannot overturn a law on the grounds that it is “unreasonable.” In a separate, parallel ruling, the court granted itself the power to overturn Basic Laws. Yonoson Rosenblum comments:

As works of legal craftsmanship, the majority opinions in the recent decision could not have been shoddier. As a number of commentators noted, if the sources of the High Court’s authority to strike down Basic Laws were clear, there would have been no need to spill over 700 pages of text to justify the decision. But [the outgoing court president Esther] Hayut does not speak the language of samkhut (legal authority based on statute), but rather that of hatsdakah (fitting, proper, just). That is of a piece with her declaration at a legal conference that she views her role as conforming the law to the dictates of justice. About her own ability to determine what is just, as opposed to what the representatives of the population voted on, she is not plagued by any self-doubt.

No fewer than 62 times in her opinion did she write, “in my opinion.”

Had the High Court wanted to avoid triggering another round of social discord, it had the means to do so. . . . In this case, the court could have noted that the so-called “unreasonableness clause amendment” to the Basic Law did not affect in any respect the High Court’s ability to overrule executive or administrative actions on a host of other grounds, most notably a lack of proper legal authority for the decision in question, and therefore was of little impact on the High Court’s powers.

Read more at Jewish Media Resources

More about: Israel's Basic Law, Israeli Judicial Reform, Israeli Supreme Court

 

Hizballah Is Learning Israel’s Weak Spots

On Tuesday, a Hizballah drone attack injured three people in northern Israel. The next day, another attack, targeting an IDF base, injured eighteen people, six of them seriously, in Arab al-Amshe, also in the north. This second attack involved the simultaneous use of drones carrying explosives and guided antitank missiles. In both cases, the defensive systems that performed so successfully last weekend failed to stop the drones and missiles. Ron Ben-Yishai has a straightforward explanation as to why: the Lebanon-backed terrorist group is getting better at evading Israel defenses. He explains the three basis systems used to pilot these unmanned aircraft, and their practical effects:

These systems allow drones to act similarly to fighter jets, using “dead zones”—areas not visible to radar or other optical detection—to approach targets. They fly low initially, then ascend just before crashing and detonating on the target. The terrain of southern Lebanon is particularly conducive to such attacks.

But this requires skills that the terror group has honed over months of fighting against Israel. The latest attacks involved a large drone capable of carrying over 50 kg (110 lbs.) of explosives. The terrorists have likely analyzed Israel’s alert and interception systems, recognizing that shooting down their drones requires early detection to allow sufficient time for launching interceptors.

The IDF tries to detect any incoming drones on its radar, as it had done prior to the war. Despite Hizballah’s learning curve, the IDF’s technological edge offers an advantage. However, the military must recognize that any measure it takes is quickly observed and analyzed, and even the most effective defenses can be incomplete. The terrain near the Lebanon-Israel border continues to pose a challenge, necessitating technological solutions and significant financial investment.

Read more at Ynet

More about: Hizballah, Iron Dome, Israeli Security